Steve Bannon's defense arguments have been limited by a number of court rulings.
The trial could not be delayed and House members could not be called as witnesses.
The prosecutors see the case as straightforward.
Federal prosecutors made it clear that the case against Steve Bannon was very simple.
Prosecutors said in a December court filing that they would need just one day of testimony at the trial to prove that Bannon broke the law. It was a bold claim at the time, but with the trial set to begin on Monday, the case is going to be very straightforward.
A number of pre- trial rulings have left Bannon defenseless, preventing him from presenting a number of arguments his defense lawyers hoped to raise. At a hearing in Washington, DC, last week that eviscerated many of Bannon's planned defenses, the US District Court Judge ruled that his lawyers could not argue that executive privilege excused his refusal to sit for questioning or turn over records to the House.
The defense team for former White House strategist Steve Bannon was prevented from arguing that his defiance was justified because of his previous role in Donald Trump's administration. The judge stopped the onetime Trump advisor from calling Pelosi and other lawmakers to testify and forbade his lawyers from pointing to internal Justice Department memos about limits on congressional subpoenas.
It was not possible for Bannon to argue that he decided not to comply with the subpoena based on the advice of his lawyer.
"What's the point of going to trial if there aren't any defenses?" David Schoen asked in open court Monday.
Legal experts told Insider that the trial prospects are bad.
Legal arguments could have muddied the case for jurors, so any chances of skirting conviction probably rested in legal arguments. The Justice Department objected to those defenses being taken off the table.
Barb McQuade is a University of Michigan law professor and former US attorney in Detroit. It is a conviction that we all know how this will end.
Although he pledged to make his prosecution the "misdemeanor from hell" for the Biden administration, his continued desire to stand trial has the potential to benefit.
McQuade said that it would be a circus because of how Steve Bannon rolls.
Jeffrey Bellin is a professor at the William & Mary Law School.
The government still has the right to prove its case even though the judge ruled out most of the defenses. Bellin told Insider that he would expect more going on here than just legal strategy.
Bannon gets a public platform to fight the charges, and preserves the legal issues, like the applicability of executive privilege. He could possibly plead guilty. Guilty pleas often require defendants to agree not to appeal.
The defense team is focused on the next step.
His lawyers twice asked for a delay of the trial in light of the publicity surrounding the House January 6 committee's recent string of hearings. According to his lawyers, a recent letter from Trump waiving a claim of executive privilege was the reason for his recent offer to testify.
The offer was dismissed as a last-ditch attempt to avoid accountability. The issue of the trial's timing for a potential appeal was asked if he could continue to document instances of publicity.
I think it's very well-preserved, that's why I invited that further documentation.
If there was a challenge to a guilty verdict, it would likely address the argument that Bannon relied on good faith when he disobeyed the House committee. He wrote that he was bound by precedent from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
The court might be inclined to agree withBannon and allow this evidence in if it were a first impression.
There is an opportunity for the DC Circuit to revisit that precedent.
It's not clear what strategy the lawyers will use to get the rulings they want. The House January 6 committee's subpoena was not firm, but flexible, and not as hard-and-fast as the government says, and that is one of the arguments that is still on the table.
After months of stonewalling the House January 6 committee, Bannon recently offered to testify. Even though federal prosecutors argued that his last-minute offer was irrelevant to the case, he left open the possibility that he might raise his recent discussions about testifying before the committee.
At the time, the crime of default is over. A defense argument that Bannon saw the deadline as changeable and always intended to comply with the subpoena would be no different.
"I don't think it's a strong argument."
According to defense lawyers, they plan to call Robert Costello, an attorney who represented Steve Bannon, as a witness. The decision of whether or not to call the defendants to the stand is likely to come down to the last minute.
The House January 6 panel's general counsel and an FBI agent will be the only witnesses called by prosecutors. Stephen Hart, an FBI agent, is going to testify about the statements that were made about the subpoena and the default.
The House January 6 committee's investigation will be the subject of Amerling's testimony.
It is a case that is easy to understand for prosecutors.
It's about whether he got a subpoena, whether he knew about it, and whether he showed up when he knew he was supposed to be there.
Business Insider has an article on it.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
